is the .44 still Special?

[Mike Irwin]

The Russian probably penetrated more wood boards in those tests due solely to bullet profile. The flat point bullet that was pretty much universal on .44-40 bullets that time likely would not have penetrated as well.

Edited to add.... the .44-40 bullet was also lighter, which also likely cut back on the overall penetration numbers.

"S&W did not design their top breaks to take the longer 45 LC cartridge, and don't even mention it in their advertising. They did claim their pistol and round were designed for target shooting and hunting, which is not a lot of information about ballistics other than diameter."

Uhm... We're not talking about break tops, at least not in terms of the .44 Special. We're talking about the N-frame Hand Ejector, which was the New Century model in S&W advertising and was introduce in 1907-1908.

As for the break tops, no, the Model 3 was never chambered for the .45 Colt -- that cartridge was too long. That's the entire reason why the .45 S&W came into existence. It was short enough to fit in the Model 3's frame.

After testing the US military adopt the S&W loading, dropping production of the .45 Colt cartridge, and loaded the S&W version until the end of .45 revolver production.

As for the origin of the .44 Russian, it came about due to another case of Russian collusion... When approached by Russia, S&W originally offered handguns chambered for the .44 American round, which used the old style heeled bullet. The Russians requested a single-diameter bullet, and thus the .44 Russian was born.

The .44 Russian cartridge predates the .45 Long Colt by 3 years in design, and was first offered commercially for sale in the US around 1871.

At that time Colt was selling opentop revolvers chambered in .44 Colt while working on what would become the Model 1873 for the US military.

In reality, if anything, Colt was bringing out its revolvers/cartridges in response to the headstart and advantage the S&W had from the patent on the bored through cylinder, which lasted until... 1867?

S&W's entry into the US military competition was, if anything, an afterthought because they were at full production making handguns for the US civilian market and for the Russian military.

In fact, in the late 1870s the US military came back to S&W with another request for Schofield models. S&W was still selling guns to the Russians, who were paying in gold.

The US was offering, for 8,000 revolvers, payment in US currency at some point in the future, AFTER delivery of all 8,000 guns, and when the government got around to it.

Suitably impressed with the War Department's terms, S&W told them to sod off.

 

[Hanshi]

Having owned a few .44 spl revolvers, I think it's a great standard cartridge and the revolvers are usually lighter. I reload for it and prefer lead bullet loads at around 900 fps. If I need more power than the special, which is very seldom, I go straight to the magnum. My only .44 spl is a S&W M24 6.5" I bought new about 30/35 years ago. Very nice revolver.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

S&W did not design their top breaks to take the longer 45 LC cartridge, and don't even mention it in their advertising. They did claim their pistol and round were designed for target shooting and hunting, which is not a lot of information about ballistics other than diameter.

Howdy

Going back as far as the American Model, the standard cylinder length for 44 caliber Smith and Wesson Top Break revolvers was 1 7/16". With the Russian Model, 1 7/16" remained the standard cylinder length, and the 44 Russian cartridge fit just fine into a cylinder that long, as did the 44 S&W American cartridge.

When S&W negotiated the contracts with the Army for the Schofield model, the Army initially wanted the revolvers chambered for 45 Colt. But the 45 Colt cartridge was too long for a 1 7/16" cylinder. S&W was in the middle of producing about 150,000 Russian models, and they were not about to change their tooling for what turned out to be only about 8,000 Schofield models. The Army was adamant about a 45 caliber cartridge, so a compromise was made creating the 45 Schofield cartridge that could fit into a 1 7/16" long cylinder.

If you look at that spec sheet for cartridges for the old S&W Top Break revolvers, you will also notice 38 Winchester (38-40) and 44 Winchester (44-40) listed. These cartridges too were too long for a 1 7/16" cylinder. What happened was partway through the run of the 44 Double Action and New Model Number Three revolvers S&W did change their tooling to make the cylinders 1 9/16" long, which could accommodate the longer 44-40 and 38-40 cartridges. The frames also had to be stretched an extra 1/8" to accommodate the longer cylinders. If S&W had felt like it, these revolvers could also have been chambered for 45 Colt, but they never were.

And no, it had nothing to do with 45 Colt being a proprietary cartridge because Remington chambered their 1875 and 1890 model revolvers for both 44-40 and 45 Colt.

By the way, even though it is labelled 'Russian Model' in that old catalog picture, that is not a Russian Model. It is a New Model Number Three. S&W was calling it Russian Model because the most popular chambering for that revolver was 44 Russian. The same with the revolver pictured on the page with the man and woman with the target on the tree.




Regarding how popular the 44 Special cartridge is with me, let me see.

44 Hand Ejector, First Model, the Triple Lock.

44 Hand Ejector Second Model

44 Hand Ejector Third Model

44 Hand Ejector Fourth Model

Something a little bit newer, S&W Model 624

And now for something completely different, a Colt Bisley, with a 2nd Gen cylinder and barrel chambered for 44 Special

I have a few other 44 Specials, but this board only allows six photos per post.

Sorry, I am not able to comment on the current availability of 44 Special ammunition in factory loadings. I am wracking my brain, but I don't think I have ever bought any factory 44 Special ammo.

Oh, yeah. That Bisley Colt, I usually shoot it with Black Powder 44 Russian rounds.

 

[Mike Irwin]

The only .44 Special ammo I ever purchased was a couple of boxes of Blazer (shown in the speed loader in my picture) that I got to get me through to where I was handloading.

 

[Burch]

I have a S&W 696 no dash. Those are some beauties.

 

[SIGSHR]

The 44 Special is to the 44 magnum as the 38 Special is to the 357. Not only the parent round, but also the practice round. As Elmer Keith might tell us, it is
a great round to reload.
I have only one 44 Special, my 1970s Charter Arms Bulldog.

 

[Slamfire]

Driftwood: You post some great pictures, hope you were not upset when I used a couple, I did attribute their origin.

When S&W negotiated the contracts with the Army for the Schofield model, the Army initially wanted the revolvers chambered for 45 Colt. But the 45 Colt cartridge was too long for a 1 7/16" cylinder. S&W was in the middle of producing about 150,000 Russian models, and they were not about to change their tooling for what turned out to be only about 8,000 Schofield models. The Army was adamant about a 45 caliber cartridge, so a compromise was made creating the 45 Schofield cartridge that could fit into a 1 7/16" long cylinder.

I was aware of the shorter 45 Schofield, and I was aware it was not a success. From what I recall, the cartridge was less powerful and had the same user conflict as the 44 Special/44 Magnum combination has with users today. That is, the average person wants the more powerful round, because they make assumptions about increased power being a desirable attribute.

And no, it had nothing to do with 45 Colt being a proprietary cartridge because Remington chambered their 1875 and 1890 model revolvers for both 44-40 and 45 Colt.

I just finished a book on the history of Mass Marketing, I have already read books on the personality of Corporations. Corporations are all profit maximizing entities. Personality wise, they are grandiose, egotistical, self centered, jealous, suspicious, lack empathy, etc, etc. They do not like promoting anyone else's brand, or products. As an example, the 38 S&W Special was a very popular cartridge, and Colt had to produce revolvers in that caliber or miss out on the market. Remember what Colt called their 38 S&W Special chambering and what name did they use for the cartridges? It sure did not have Smith and Wesson in the name. It still confuses owners of those revolvers, as their Colt barrel is not stamped 38 S&W Special.

Winchester did not make revolvers, so chambering S&W revolvers in Winchester rifle cartridges would not have been promoting a revolver competitor. I think that is why we see a list of Winchester rounds listed by name for S&W revolvers. And, they made profit because so many rifle shooters wanted revolver in the same cartridge as their rifle. S&W would rather have had its teeth pulled than acknowledge anything Colt, like the 45 Colt.

Remington was willing to swallow its natural disgust of its competitor's, in order to make profit. But even so, S&W and Colt basically buried the Remington single action product line.

What you might know, which I don't , is how S&W promoted the 44 Russian and 44 Special. Why did S&W choose 44?, what claims did they make? From the material you posted, S&W is claiming penetration in wood as a quality attribute. Their round is better than the 44-40 because it penetrates more wood, they would not have put that in their literature if it was not a distinction they wanted to claim, to induce the consumer to buy a S&W product in 44 Russian. Did S&W make comparisons of their rounds, that is the 44 Russian and the 44 Special, against the 45 LC? What did they claim?

 

[tipoc]

Yes it is. A very good round.

tipoc

 

[Mike Irwin]

"I was aware of the shorter 45 Schofield, and I was aware it was not a success. From what I recall, the cartridge was less powerful and had the same user conflict as the 44 Special/44 Magnum combination has with users today. That is, the average person wants the more powerful round, because they make assumptions about increased power being a desirable attribute."

Actually, it was a pretty successful cartridge.

S&W chambered, and sold, revolvers for it into the second decade of the 1900s. By all accounts it was a fairly well liked and respected cartridge at the time.

It was also loaded commercially right up to World War II.

It would also be counted as a success for no other reason than the fact that the US military abandoned the full-power .45 Long Colt for the .45 S&W loading.

After 1876 Frankford Arsenal produced no .45 Long Colt ammunition for its Colt service revolvers -- it was all .45 S&W.

Why?

Two reasons. First, the S&W round would work in both Colt and S&W revolvers.

Secondly, the main complaint about the .45 Long Colt was that it was too powerful in its standard loading, kicked too much, and wore guns more quickly than was liked.

 

[Ledslnger]

I have one of the Ruger GP-100 in .44 Special. Haven't had it long, but everyone that shoots it is blown away. There is no recoil. Think it is probably due to the weight. Pretty solid revolver. I do load my own rounds though and the last batch was 200 gr round nose lead with a mid range powder drop. Getting old, can't remember what type right now. It is a fun revolver to shoot. I grabbed one because my friend said everyone needs a .44 and he gave me the dies. Ended up buying the Special instead of the Magnum just to be a little different.

 

[Slamfire]

S&W chambered, and sold, revolvers for it into the second decade of the 1900s.

What!? I looked at Roy Jinks book and the major purchaser for the 45 Schofield was the Army, which purchased 8,000 S&W Schofield’s in 1877 and surplussed them in 1880. At the same time, the Army purchased almost double the number of Colt 45LC's. Yes, the Government made the M1887 Military Ball Cartridge, because it would fit into both the Schofied and the Colt SAA, but that cartridge was only made by the Army.

The 1909 Cartridge is the same as the 45 LC except for a wider rim, so when the Army went back to a 45 round, after the 38 LC failure, it did not go back to the 45 Schofield.

Jinks states that the New Model 3 was chambered in 45 Schofield, but does not provide a quantity.

So, how many S& revolvers were chamberied in 45 Schofield, after production ended on the old Model 3? And how many 44 Russians were chambered? And then of course, how many 45 LC's by everyone? That would show just how popular that round was by in comparison.

Actually, it was a pretty successful cartridge
It was also loaded commercially right up to World War II.

Didn't make it into the 1950's. I could go through Cartridges of the World and find a bunch of rimfires and other cartridges that were made, all the way up to WW2, and then were dumped, because the sales were not there.

It is however, being made today, and if someone has one, they better buy all the brass they can, because if Cowboy Action proves to be a fad, the brass will be hard to get in time.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"What!? I looked at Roy Jinks book and the major purchaser for the 45 Schofield was the Army, which purchased 8,000 S&W Schofield’s in 1877 and surplussed them in 1880. At the same time, the Army purchased almost double the number of Colt 45LC's. Yes, the Government made the M1887 Military Ball Cartridge, because it would fit into both the Schofied and the Colt SAA, but that cartridge was only made by the Army."

Really?

Smith & Wesson also offered Number 3 revolvers chambered in .45 S&W version on the civilian market in the United States.

There is some question as to exactly how many were manufactured, and if they were primarily intended to use up overruns of cylinders and barrels for the initial government order.

However, S&W also chambered some of their early double action breaktops in .45 S&W and also chambered the New Century Hand Ejector for the cartridge. Quantities were not great, but there was obviously enough call to make the venture viable.




"but that cartridge was only made by the Army."

Regarding the .45 S&W cartridge...

Really? You think that the US Army was the only manufacturer of .45 S&W ammunition?

I guess someone forgot to tell Remington-UMC that...

Given the South Carolina commercial tax stamp and the box design, that box was made in the mid 1920s to early 1930s.

According to this discussion, Remington was still cataloging Schofield ammunition for commercial sale in 1937.

https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/45-colt-schofield-question/10357

You'll also find that UMC (prior to being purchased by Remington in the early 1900s) was manufacturing .45 S&W ammunition commercially as early as 1880 (http://cartridgecollectors.org/ammunition-catalogs/UMC)

I believe that the US Cartridge Company was also manufacturing .45 S&W around the same time, but I don't have any catalog reprints for them.

The commercially loaded .45 S&W ammunition of this time was dimensionally identical and interchangeable with the .45 S&W ammunition that was being loaded by Frankford Arsenal, and like the military ammunition, the commercial .45 S&W ammunition could be used in either S&W breaktops or Colt 1873s.

Finally, if the .45 S&W cartridge wasn't manufactured commercially, how did the American Express company arm its guards?

AmEx purchased many Schofield revolvers when the Army began surplussing them, chopped the barrels, and issued them to their agents.

The Army didn't surplus the ammunition, so AmEx had to purchase it commercially.

As I noted, Bob Wright has noted, and Driftwood has (I believe) noted in other discussions on this subject over the years, Frankford arsenal quit loading .45 Colt dimensioned ammunition for its revolvers by 1876 and adopted the case (with a slightly modified rim dimension) and loading that S&W submitted to the Army in 1875.


"Didn't make it into the 1950's. I could go through Cartridges of the World and find a bunch of rimfires and other cartridges that were made, all the way up to WW2, and then were dumped, because the sales were not there."



Really? That's how you judge the commercial popularity and viability of a cartridge over its entire history? Is if it was picked back up after World War II?

So, once hugely popular cartridges like the .50-70 Springfield that were NOT reintroduced into production immediately after World War II were actually the most unpopular cartridges every to have been mistakenly introduced into production?

I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make, and I'm pretty sure that you don't know, either.

We've already discussed the fact that the .45 S&W was NOT as popular as some of the other cartridges of the same era, and it was NOT as popular a chambering for Smith & Wesson as their .44 Russian or later .44 Special.

But you are persisting in leaping to the conclusion that "not as popular" somehow equals "unpopular" or "hated, reviled, and cursed."

Not the case.

 

[Slamfire]

Very interesting pictures and link. I am downloading those UMC catalogues, they are good reference materials. And you have proved the 45 Schofield was made into the 20 th century.

I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make, and I'm pretty sure that you don't know, either.

Well this was a thread about the 44 Special being special, and that was what my first post in this thread addressed. Since then, the thread has been diverted, by you. Now, what exact kind of point have you been trying to make throughout this thread, Moderator?

 

[Mike Irwin]

Well, I'll remind you that this all started with this statement from you:

"I consider the 44 Special, when handloaded, an excellent round. There is no doubt in my mind that S&W wanted to sell a round and pistol ballistically equivalent to the 45 Long Colt, but, not have a S&W pistol chambered in 45 Long Colt."

Yes, the entire discussion has twisted and curved, but throughout it all, you've been pretty consistent in mischaracterizing the actual historical facts and record.

The history, development, design, and use of metallic cartridges, especially in the United States, is one of my passions. It's an incredibly fascinating subject that provides valuable insight into US history on so many levels.

And when it crosses over into my passion for Smith & Wesson revolvers, that's like double soup Tuesday at the orphanarium for me.

And when I see statements that just don't jibe with the historic record, I'm going to address it.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Getting back to the discussion of the .44 Special, specifically to reloading, when I picked up my .44 in early 2000s and started handloading I was not happy with the performance I was getting.

I was trying to use WW 231 in the huge case and was getting significant variations in shot-to-shot performance, most likely due to powder position and inconsistent ignition.

I was looking at options for a bulkier powder like Unique (which I've never liked) or one of the Dots, most likely Red Dot, but hadn't made up my mind when a new powder jumped onto the scene with me in mind.

Trail Boss was designed specifically to give people like me who love the old rounds with huge cases a powder that would provide high loading density.

Trail Boss has been a dream come true for me in .44 Special. It's all I've used for well over a decade now.

 

[jackmoser65]

Smith and Wesson did chamber the 45 Colt and Colt chambered the 44 special. Smith didn't chamber it in the top breaks because the cylinder was too short. The Colt cartridge was used very little by the military in favor of a hybrid using the Colt's rim and the Schofield's length because it worked in both guns. So who cares?

Bottom line is that in its the performance envelope and the use of smokeless powders, the 44 special is a much better cartridge. The 45 is a relic of the blackpowder era and is really only useful at more than double the pressure in large frame Rugers. In conclusion, hell yeah, the 44 is SPECIAL!

I was looking at options for a bulkier powder like Unique (which I've never liked)

Unique and the 44 special go together like peanut butter and jelly!

 

[Mike Irwin]

"The 45 is a relic of the blackpowder era..."

Well, here's some information I bet you don't know about the .44 Special...

Smith & Wesson originally developed AND offered it as a black powder cartridge.

AND a smokeless powder cartridge.

The .44 Special is, in fact, the last American cartridge ever developed for use with black powder.

I used to have a really nice picture of a box of early Remington-UMC blackpowder .44 Special ammo, but now I can't find it.

An article here, though references the ammo

http://www.leverguns.com/articles/44special.htm


Page 93 of the Remington 1911-1912 firearms and ammo catalog shows both black powder and smokless loads for .44 Special.

http://cartridgecollectors.org/ammunition-catalogs/Remington

 

[jackmoser65]

I never said it wasn't loaded with blackpowder but it certainly was not designed as one. The 44 special debuted in 1907, well into the era of smokeless powder, which was also bulkier than it is today. Yes, it was offered loaded with blackpowder, a fact not unknown to me. However, the 45 colt was developed 35 years prior as a blackpowder cartridge, very shortly after the Rollin White patent expired and breech loading cartridge revolvers became possible, long before the advent of smokeless powder. The point being not to show how smart I am but that at 14kpsi, there is a lot of wasted powder space in the 45 colt case. That the 44 is simply a cartridge better suited to guns like the New Century and Colt Single Action Army.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"I never said it wasn't loaded with blackpowder but it certainly was not designed as one."

Yes, it was. UMC, the company working with Smith & Wesson on the design and introduction of the .44 Special, developed BOTH smokeless and black powder loadings concurrently.

So it was designed, developed, and introduced to the shooting public as a black powder cartridge.... AND a smokeless powder round.

Even in 1907 people were still worried that this new fangled smokless powder wasn't going to stick around. And apparently most of them worked at Smith & Wesson.



"there is a lot of wasted powder space in the 45 colt case."

There's also a lot of empty space in the .44 Special case when you load it with smokeless powder, at least modern smokless powders.

The first generation smokless powders, like RESQ and the original Bullseye formulations, tended to be fairly high volume but low energy density, so the cases were a lot fuller than they tend to be today.

I have several boxes of Winchester .44 Special ammo (see my first picture) from around 1920, including one broken box.

I cut one of the cartridges open some years ago and found a very fluffy, light gray smokeless powder that gave a loading density of very close to 100%.

I've never been able to identify it, unfortunately.

 

[JERRYS.]

this wasn't suppose to be a hand loading thread but here goes.... 6.0 grains of Unique under a 240gr. SWC is a nice shooting Special load.

having said that, I like the commercial choices now.... Underwood and Buffalo Bore each have a LSWC HP 190 grains or so with impressive velocities for a defensive Special round. (Underwood is half the cost of BB listed with the same load and performance on paper).